Debate on Wartime Patriotism — Today’s Matchup: Ed Schultz vs. Hillary Clinton
**Written by Doug Powers
Welcome to today’s debate on patriotism when it comes to unconditionally supporting a president at a time of war. Today’s debaters are MSNBC host Ed Schultz and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Ms. Clinton won the coin toss and has elected to defer to Mr. Schultz. Take it away, Ed:
Republicans are attacking the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war! … There should be no debate: we should be kicking [Gaddafi's] ass … Whose side are you on, Sarah: are you with the terrorists, Sarah, or are you with the President of the United States? … And I have to ask the question tonight: where is the patriotism from all of these war-hawks? Where’s the patriotism of the Republican party? … What about being a patriot?
Thank you, Mr. Schultz.
Secretary Clinton — you have 16 seconds for rebuttal:
“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
That wraps up today’s debate, thanks so much for watching. Be sure to tune in next week to see Claire McCaskill and Joe Biden hammer it out over the question, “Is paying more in taxes patriotic?”
(h/t Newsbusters)
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Subscribe to the Michelle Malkin newsletter
February 22, 2012 12:44 PM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsSurprise: UK’s Version of ‘Buffett Rule’ Failing to Bring in Expected Revenue
February 22, 2012 11:05 AM by Doug Powers
47 Comments
The high priests of eco-destruction
February 22, 2012 07:50 AM by Michelle Malkin
117 Comments
Gallup: Unemployment Climbing Back to 9% for February
February 21, 2012 02:56 PM by Doug Powers
70 Comments
Video of the day
February 21, 2012 12:31 PM by Michelle Malkin
70 CommentsOvernight Open Thread: Dems Try to Manufacture New Voting Bloc
February 20, 2012 10:24 PM by Doug Powers
55 CommentsDana Perino: Media Blamed Bush for High Gas Prices But Gives Obama a Pass
February 20, 2012 01:36 PM by Doug Powers
56 Comments
Categories: Barack Obama,George W. Bush,Media,Politics,War
Sister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day: “There is no male equivalent for abortion”Redstate
» Obama the Tax Cutter? Think AgainHot Air
» Poll: Romney on the rise in Arizona?Redstate
» Daily Links – February 22, 2012Redstate
» Dahlia Lithwick Hates Medical Research
So anyone who, for example, wants to fight against the chattel slavery that still goes on in Africa is obligated to adopt some of its victims or he’s a hypocrite?
Amazing the twists of logic the pro-death crowd’s willing to engage in.
@Flyoverman. I feel your frustration. But this is a good take on it. here.
Let’s see some examples of that. I’ve seen complaints of that from the Left plenty of times before, but I’ve found many of them to have a persecution complex. They need to feel persecuted in order to feel important.
The problem with the Democrats in the Iraq war was not their criticism of Bush’s “war tactics”. They were advocating surrender and doing everything they could to undermine the morale of our soldiers, knowing full well that failure in Iraq would result in terrorists setting up shop there. And they did it without offering any ideas of their own for what could prevent that outcome.
Now you tell me what Republicans have been doing this time around that’s comparable. For one thing, the military operations themselves aren’t even comparable. In one instance, we were fighting aganist actual committed enemies of our country that were determined to destroy us. In Lybia, we’re actually fighting on the same side as al-Qaeda.
Even still, Republican critics have not been suggesting, as the Democrats did in Iraq, that the enemy is too strong for us and that there’s no way we could defeat him, but simply pointing out that Obama’s “strategy” (such as there’s even a coherent thing) is taking us in a very wrong direction.
No. They are simply taking exception to WHATEVER Obama does. If you want to see a lack of coherence, take a good look at Newt’s monumental flip flop on this issue, driven by nothing more than needing desperately to appear on the opposite side of Obama, rationale be damned.
But hey, give him some credit. At least he came out with some sort of position prior to Obama’s decision. I guess he figured he had a 50/50 shot at being “right.” The rest of the feckless GOP simply sat on the sidelines until after Obama took action so that they knew they could be of the opposite opinion.
The Grenada invasion was authorized by the Monroe Doctrine and the subsequent Roosevelt Corollary and the Clark Memorandum.
We sent in Gunny Clint Eastwood to take care of all the bad guys. That guy is tough every which way but loose.
Go back and take a look at this blog’s archives at the debates over the Iraq war btw your ilk, and the liberal “trolls”.
The Dixie Chicks protested the war in Europe and claimed that they were ashamed of Bush. Many on your ilk, considered that to be un-American. News flash: It’s possible to love the hell out of your country, and despise the actions of the leadership. Voicing that concern is a very “American” thing to do.
But you hint at your own view of what’s considered un-American here, and tell on yourself.
That’s absolutely incorrect.
No Democrat or liberal that I, or you for that matter, saw or heard did everything they could to undermine the morale of our soldiers. That’s just emotion and hyperbole on your part. You’d be talking extremists, if your talking about people bashing/undermining the troops themselves. All sides have extremists, and they aren’t relevant to this discussion. Most liberals were against the Iraq War from the outset, not because they love terrorists or hate America, but because most liberals out against war, unless it’s absolutely necessary. Many liberals didn’t see the Iraq War as necessary. They were right!
Moderates and most Dems in Congress signed on to the war, because they believe the WMD fraud. Once the WMD fraud was exposed, the Left, in general terms, wanted to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible.
Terrorists have set up shop everywhere, including right here in the USA. And terrorists will return to Iraq, and likely have already. But you don’t fight terror, by waging war after war with entire countries. You fight it, if you’re smart, with spies, assassinations…dirty tricks…military intelligence.
The war in Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terror, and everything to do with Bush and Cheney serving their own personal interests.
Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed his own people, but there are dozens of Saddam’s all around the globe, and always will be. Sorry to sound harsh, but that’s the problem of the people under the dictator’s foot.
Personally, I don’t care who is in office, I’m fundamentally opposed to invading any country to “liberate” the suppressed. I believe in acts of war for the purposes of retaliation, and/or to take down governments who pose a direct threat to US interests period
I gotta practice some guitar and do some stuff around the house. Catcha later folks.
Thank goodness. Can I get an amen?
Obama IS a left-wing socialist. His foreign policy and using military power is a separate issue. He is a socialist. He hates capitalism. He is gearing up for the 2012 elections and starting to talk like a moderate. Anyone with a brain knows he lies. Don’t listen to what he SAYS, watch what he DOES. He is destroying the economy of our great country. There is no way we would be in this much financial trouble unless the regressives were purposely trying to bring us down.
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh please tell me you aren’t serious! Wait–no! It is much funnier if you ARE serious!
You do know the difference between “justification” and “authorization” right?
But if you really want to go there, can you please point out in the Public Laws where Congress officially adopted and approved of the Monroe Doctrine or any of it’s progeny.
I have a similar moral quandary every year right around now. For I am a Mets fan.
The Grenada invasion was consistent with the War Powers Act.
A bunch of liberal lies and gobblygook.
The War is lost. Bush Lied, People died. Bush is Hitler. Blood for oil. Its all Boooosh and Cheneeey. I was for the war before I was against it. We didn’t know. We were duped by that illiterate Cowboy President. Wahhhhh.
They were wrong, as usual.
There was no “Iraq” war. The Iraqi theatre was a 2nd theatre of the same war, much as the European theatre was a 2nd theatre in WWII.
The Iraqi front was both necessary and justified; Iraq fired at our warplanes flying the no-fly zone, which was a violation of the armistice, an act of war, and of course, something not to be tolerated.
But, more importantly, the Iraq theatre placed Iran between a rock and a hard place. Once we conquered Iraq and Afghanistan, we could have crushed Iran between, then swung west in a hammerblow to Syria.
But the progressive President Bush would rather nation-build than conquer our enemies.
If we are going to call a handful of medical students who were never ACTUALLY in harms way, and specifically stated they were never in danger sufficient justification for the invasion, then I am sure we can come up with just a compelling reason in Libya. I guarantee there were a lot more Americans there when the revolution started than in Grenada.
Wow. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Actually, it’s not.
He’s using military power now, in the way he’s using it, to progress his socialist agenda. No one is getting excited over the fact that we’ve put foreigners in command of U.S. troops (and we should.) That is part of his socialist agenda. U.S. taxpayers fund our military, and he wants to put it at the disposal of whoever may have use of its superior capabilities.
As for “unAmerican”, it’s not simply reaction to a liberal’s verbal spewage, but the content of that spewage, its context, and its intent.
The Dixie Chix, badmouthing the President in a foreign country was uncouth, and reflected badly on us. But, the issue, the context… that is what made them unAmerican.
For me to say, here, “Just so you know, I’m ashamed Obama is from Kenya”, is my right as a citizen, but would be in bad taste. For me to say it, to a European audience… *now*, would mean I’m ashamed we’re blowing the hell out of Gadhafi’s military. It’s apologizing for what America is doing at his command, *not* expressing distaste for the occupant of the White House. And ever apologizing to our inferiors for anything America does is unAmerican.
So, you see us disagreeing with, predicting bad results from, questioning the legitimacy of this campaign, we are not apologizing to anybody for doing it.
(I know happy, I quoted you, but I addressed most of this to whatsisname you were replying to. Sorry.)
Got to leave you wondering. Even Bush could confuse liberals with something as simple as you are either with us or against us. Only his hairdresser knows for sure.
And did I mention the Liebold Doctrine which says if a liberal tells a lie loudly and boldly enough, that media sycophants will help them spread the lie for political purpose no matter who gets hurt or how many people die.
Sshh. Don’t tell anyone but we know about it.
Yes, that’s what Hussein was doing, but I never gave him credit for an overabundance of smarts.
I’ve advocated the Anthrax Solution* ever since 9/11.
*(if there is no hoof-and-mouth disease, there won’t be any hoof-and-mouth disease).
By “context” you mean “my side.” Nothing more. Nothing less.
“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
Damn. And libtards are critical of Sarah’s voice. Where are my ear drops? I just had to listen, didn’t I?
But thanked us for “saving their lives” afterward. Hmm. Tough call.
Well, it does have a very whiny tone.
Yes, after the State department stepped in and guaranteed them all med school educations in the US.
How convenient.
But either wa the point is that if that is the WPA justification for Grenada, surely we can make a much stronger case in Libya.
Well, it does have a very whiny tone.
And you’re ok Hillary’s?
God no. But I wouldn’t call it “whiny.” More like aged school marm meets cackling witch.
And you’re a lawyer? Don’t tell me what I mean. The context was the beginning of a war; the context was in front of a European audience. The context was why we were going to war.
Context as in the set of circumstances surrounding the statement.
I didn’t even mention the students that were rescued.
The War Powers Act allows the President to act when the nation is in imminent danger, which a runway in a soon-to-be (or perhaps already) communist country capable of supporting heavy bombers within range of our coast would have been.
You clearly don’t have a good grasp on what lawyers do.
…clouded irreparably by the fog of partisanship. It is incredibly easy to make up ex post facto (using latin terms is another thing us lawyers do) excuses why their guy did it wrong, but our guy did it right. Glom on to any difference, no matter how irrelevant and label it “context.”
Both sides do it, admittedly. But don’t pi$$ on my leg and call it rain.
Chapoutier, There’s always a compelling reason for the U.S. to go to war.
There were Americans in danger in Libya. American reporters were being held captive, by their own accounts. An American was jostled on his way to the ferry. It’s Wednesday. That’s all irrelevant.
Unless Libya represents an imminent danger to the U.S. (such as the Cuban missile crisis or the Grenadan war), Obama has to ask Congress, “Can I go blow up that piece of poo?”
Awesome. The Bush doctrine 20 years before Bush! Attack ‘em cause we can potentially imagine a potential situation in which they would possibly be an imminent threat!
You do realize that there were (and are) plenty of Americans in Libya, right?
This has been highly entertaining, but Survivor and Top Chef are on.
Which takes much greater precedence than Hiraghm’s mental gymnastics.
Sure I do. They twist words into money.
I don’t recall any musical groups going before a European audience and apologizing for us going to war with Libya by saying they were ashamed of Obama. Had, say, Ted Nugent, done this, I would have called him “unAmerican” for doing it. I may agree with him, but to say it, to that audience, at this time (which makes up the context) would be “unAmerican”.
I’m not the one glomming onto differences; you’re the one equating two different scenarios.
You seem to be reading what you want me to say, or what you think I’m going to say, rather than what I actually said…
It wasn’t a potential situation; they were building the runway. It was capable of supporting heavy bombers. Grenada was on the verge of being taken over by communists.
We got the Americans out of Libya that wished to leave w/o having to resort to force. In Grenada, the American students were being held captive. Which was irrelevant, because the imminent, not potential threat was that runway. A runway which Grenada did not need or use for normal commercial traffic, at a time when it was being over-run by communists.
the minutes of the politburo meeting, which communist traitor Barbara Lee attended at the behest of communist traitor Ron Dellums, bear this out.
You don’t have a firm grasp on the definition of “potential” do you?
But hey…lets say you are right.
Did Libya have runways? Yup. Do they have bombers? Indeed they do! Supersonic ones! In all, they have (or had maybe) almost 400 combat capable aircraft. Some of which have a range of over 3,000 miles. Do we have any military bases within 3,000 miles of Libya? We do?!? Well then I guess, per the Hiraghm Doctrine as applied to the Grenada Corollary, we are fully justified in kicking the hell out of Libya.
You don’t have a firm grasp of the term “imminent” do you?
I know what it means. You have utterly failed to demonstrate it in Grenada. As you have failed to demonstrate a single substantive difference in Reagan’s actions toward Grenada and Obama’s per Libya.
Except that you don’t like Obama. There’s your “context,” boys and girls.
I’m not responsible for your obtuseness (obtusity?) You must not win many cases, unless you’re being purposefully obtuse.
Minutes from the politburo meeting confirmed the purpose of the runway. Bombers. Grenada had no need for bombers; Libya did. Libya prior to the bombing, Libya was not in danger of being taken over by communists; Grenada was, prior to the invasion. Libya, NOW, is in danger of being taken over by a Moslem theocracy.
Prior to the insurrection, Libya has shown no intention of sending bombers to the U.S.; unlike Grenada, we have no intelligence telling us so. Americans have been allowed to leave Libya; not so in Grenada.
Obama is bombing Libya to help the rebels. Reagan invaded Grenada to help Americans.
Difference? Yeah, other than being exactly opposite, I guess there’s no difference.
Also, I look forward to your denouncement of Palin as “unamerican.”
But let me guess. The fact that Palin made her comment on a Saturday but the Dixie Chicks had the gall and unpatriotism to make theirs on a TUESDAY!!! provides you the proper “context” to sustain your cognitive dissonance, right?
What was that need, exactly?
You are apparently the sad relic of a failed foreign policy: Tolerate any measure of evil dictatorship so long as they have the good sense not to label themselves a “communist.”
Right. Because Qudaffi has shown a lot of prior restraint in killing Americans. Curious, how many Americans had the leader of Grenada killed before we went in?
Are you saying the Americans in Grenada were being held hostage? That is a lie. We only said we were concerned that the COULD become hostages.
Seriously, the only reason I am still on this thread is to see how long it will take for you to drop another “mongoloid” bomb.
Or maybe you will get lazy and just type “tard.” All the same to you, no doubt.
the only reason you’re on this thread is that you’re upset about Reagan ending a communist regime….you libs hate to see that happen…
and of course you’re defending the muslim-brotherhood spring…again no surprise…I’m sure you’re all for attacking syria too!!
I’m bored of this thread, but that was funny as ****. It caused a spit take. lmbo.
oh gee I must have missed where you were for getting rid of Saddam…and of course you want to invade iran and north korea right away don’t ya??
You don’t have to bash the troops themselves in order to undermine their morale. All you have to do is keep milking the “this war is lost” propaganda to the nth degree. Oh and by the way, look up John Murtha and “slow bleed” when you get a chance.
And by denying the terrorists safe havens, which is exactly what Iraq would have turned into if the Left had had their way and we pulled out prematurely. Not to mention way way more violent, genocidal chaos for them to exploit.
I couldn’t care less what that twerp has to say about anything, and neither, by the looks of things, do most people on this board. You haven’t really proven anything there.
My cable is out. Anyone know how Jacob Lusk did tonight on American Idol?
For having said that she supports Obama’s overall game plan? Yeah, there’s a real comparison with the Dixie Chicks.
I’d like to add the Ivory Coast to the, do something about list. It’s a shame what’s going on there.
I can’t speak for this Hiragm Doctrine, but all I can say is that if Obama explicitly justified his action on the grounds that Libya represented some imminent threat to U.S. security, as Reagan did in Grenada, then we’d have a very different discussion right now. But as it is, Obama never even attempted to cite anything like that as a justification.
Just when I was beginning to think that we finally had a somewhat rational lib posting here. That never seems to last very long.
Facts be damned.
You can debate the facts and factual claims about a particular situation all day. The point is, it’s a completely different situation from Libya, where there isn’t even a claim that Libya’s going to pose a threat to us.
Blackstone,
So you don’t care what Newt says? If he is an incoherent mess?
What about Palin then?
She, in the course on a single interview complained about the cost of the action in Libya, while simultaneously grossly exaggerating that cost (by like 700%) and then going on to say we need to do more to actually remove Qdaffi from power, which would surely cost more than a simple no-fly zone. At least Gingrich waited a week or two to contradict himself. Palin couldn’t go three minutes.
lol. I’m as rational as they come, but I’ve said my fill on the topics at hand. I’m all in on American Idol this year, but the storm blew my cable out tonight. I was hoping someone here saw it, and could give a Jacob Lusk review. I’ll check youtube and facebook for updates and reviews.
Peace out.
Obviously you’re not familiar with my views on Palin. I think she’s a progressive stalking horse, like Schwartzenegger.
What Palin said wasn’t unAmerican, because she didn’t implicitly apologize for the U.S. or express shame for the President. I’m not happy that she said it to a bunch of foreigners, it’s none of their business. But it’s not as bad.
If she’s said, “I’m ashamed of Obama”, then yes, that’d be unAmerican in my view.
And I’m sure you’ve given a completly honest, unbiased account of what she said, without any twisting of words.
Actually, it doesn’t really matter, because I don’t regard that McCain alter ego all that highly either.
So, anything else you’d like to put up as a distraction from the discussion? You and Oto seem to be in the mood for them all of the sudden for some reason.
Blah blah blah. The tired old “distraction” “off topic” retort.
As if this, or any thread, has (or should have) one train of thought centered around one communal opinion.
If you think I am so wildly OT, ignore me. But you didn’t. You chose to engage. So trying to play that card now is as simply disingenuous.
Late entry here.
The War Powers Act takes 60 days to kick in, doesn’t it? Reagan wanted surprise and speed in Grenada, he got both. It was over in a week, if I recall.
A good thing, no? Name me a communist regime that hasn’t gone on a guillotine spree, man.
Bush figured Iraq would take longer – he had a plan, too, you see. He took the time to get a Congressional declaration.
Here we’ve got an open-ended mission with no plan – Congress needs to be consulted.
I love Palin, Hiraghm. Stalking horse, my tush.
Who cares about the Dixie Chicks? If a radio station wants to bulldoze their CDs as a publicity stunt, big deal.
Politics has never stopped at the water’s edge for the Dems, like when Pelosi put on a veil to go kiss up to Syrian thug Assad.
Obama dithered. Why make nice about it with foreigners?
Just checked Wiki. The War Powers Act was from 1942 – giving the Dem administration more power in time of war. The War Powers RESOLUTION was from 1973, giving the Dem congress more power in time of war.
Just Dems being Dems, y’know. If a GOP prez had been in office during the attack on Pearl Harbor, do you think the Dems would have cooperated or tried to trip up the GOP?
No official plan, anyway. As for what Obama’s motives are, here, that’s what makes me worry. The fact that we’re fighting on the same side as al-Qaeda is just plain nuts.
Harry Reid: The war is lost (CBS News)
Murtha accuses Marines of cold-blooded murder before facts were known (AP)
Kerry: Soldiers raped, killed, cut off ears, tortured innocent civilians (U of Richmond)
Extremists, all. There are hundreds of other examples, but the point is made.
That explains so, so much
As we look forward to your defending her.
Okay. I don’t think she is unamerican for criticizing Obama, in front of a foreign audience or otherwise. I don’t think she is unamerican at all. I have many, many other adjectives I would use, but that is not one of them.
Re Harry Reid: Did we win the war? How do you define victory? We toppled Saddam, and Bush claimed, “Mission Accomplished”, yet the war waged on. To the disgust of many on the Right, Obama has began to withdraw troops from Iraq. If the McCains of the world, want us to remain and continue to fight, then the war must not have been won, right? Claiming that a particular war is lost, is a politically stupid thing to do, but wanting to bring out men and women home from a pointless war, isn’t anti-American.
Murtha and Kerry: Accusing or reporting on the actions of specific troops is different and out of context from the concept of undermining our troops in general terms. Only extemists bash American troops in broad and general terms. I’m all for holding our soldiers accountable for atrocities. If Murtha jumped the gun, that would pertain to that specific case. He’s not un-American for voicing his concern. Few sacrificed and served this country like Murtha did.
Did we win the first Gulf war that never ended? Saddam did not surrender. He just regrouped and fooled the World with his food for oil scam while continuing in every way possible to rebuild his weapons programs, undermine the international community, and to shoot our planes down.
Saddam is dead. That goes a long way. These are not conventional wars with enemies in uniform and a formal signing ceremony that is adhered to. Saddam signed a surrender document and then proceeded to ignore it. Terrorists will continue forever. That doesn’t mean we should just surrender to them.
A liberal lie. Bush never said those words. Good for you to make up things like that though. Just not true. And “Mission” is different than “War”. I think that ship that returned from the Persian Gulf did accomplish their mission. You probably just hate that they did so you cling to that untruth as proof of some strange conclusion.
And was perpetuated by the left who voted for it and then bailed in the middle for political purpose. You know, our enemies there can read. They saw a division in our ranks and were encouraged to fight on. Thanks Harry, Murtha, Kerry et al. But its all Boooshs fault. Democrats just abdicated their responsibility for political gain. Nice.
Another liberal lie/myth. People on the right, including Bush said they want to withdraw troops too, but not to lose the war and let Iraq slip into chaos and humanitarian crisis. You have been punked if you believe the right doesn’t want to withdraw troops.
Logic is not your strong suit. False assumptions will also give you false conclusions. This will be a long war unlike any in history. Our enemies are determined but that doesn’t mean we should just give up and become Muslims to avoid their wrath.
Not just politically stupid. Stupid on all fronts, and that stupid guy is the leader of the Dem party in the Senate still. Must have lots of stupid followers.
Pointless? Yeah, I think you missed the point and that is part of the reason you can’t get the logic straight.
Yeah, undermining them in specific terms is much better.
He was a man in power that made more than just one treasonous statement about our troops. I don’t think the troops in harms way would agree with your assessment.
And then turned against it for political gain. Hero to goat in an instant. Many sacrificed their life because of his statements as he encouraged the enemy. He wasn’t alone in that.
I can’t let statements like yours go unanswered. No longer are leftist activists the only ones allowed to voice their tyrannical opinions and expect to be unopposed. There are plenty of people out there that don’t agree with your views on this and we are no longer silent. As you can see, I disagree with just about everything you said in your post.
Thanks, T Bone. Good points on the response, and saved me the trouble of responding point by point.
Only thing I will add to Ota is that you made a blanket statement that no liberal had ever undermined the morale of troops, that only extremists had done so and thus it could not be blamed on liberals as a whole. I gave you just off the top of my head three prominent leaders of the Democrat party who made public statements that definitely affected morale of the troops. This is not even up for debate, it’s fact. Parse the outcomes or meanings all you want, they are not considered extremists by your side, and they affected troop morale.
And then you accused the Right of hyperbole. Apology accepted in advance.
You make some good points that I fundamentally disagree with, and others where I may concede a small tad. But I have to just ask for the check, smile and walk out, bemused, after reading this:
That’s so not the alternative, but of course you know that.
You clearly don’t know what treason means.
I’m doing that smug, sarcastic, clap from that SNL sketch. You’ve had a voice all along, pal. Feel persecuted much?
In sum, clearly we have different defintions of “un-American”. Reid, Murtha, and Kerry are flawed and opportunists like all politicians, but they are proud patriots who disagree with your politics, and believe in accountability, nothing more, nothing less. They most certainly are not “un-American”. Or was not in Murtha’s case…
You do know what Al Qaedas ultimate goal is? I do.
I also know what treason is. Apparently, you don’t.
For libel against our Marines. For siding with the enemy during times of war.
For supporting the fabrication of the “Haditha massacre” which has been proven false and based upon unsubstantiated “evidence.” This was based upon his proposition that the Islamist terrorists were telling the truth that the accused Marines were guilty of murder and the Marines were lying.
Yeah, a Ranking member of Congress aiding and abetting an enemy during a time of war. I have no respect for Murtha. When you fight with me, you are a hero but when your throw a literal verbal grenade in my foxhole, you are a traitor.
I’m certainly not your pal according to statements you have made here and my voice will now be heard loud and clear along with millions of others. We are fighting for America as we know it, not as you and Obama would like to change it to. See you in the voting booth. As Acorn says, vote early, vote often.
That’s your defense of Reid insisting the war was lost? Merely the fact that it hadn’t yet been won? What would your impression be of a Senator who made a comment like that in 1942? (do I really want to know the answer?)
Do you really think bringing up a comparison of how long it took to win WWII as compared to if/when we “win” in Iraq helps your case?
Why are we to respect Abscam Murtha? Criminals don’t get a pass for being veterans, sorry.
Murtha said himself that he’d come out against the Iraq War because the Bush admin had failed to consult him – his feelings were hurt!
He came out and trashed our soldiers who were accused of atrocities – possibly prejudicing their court-martials. (Only his status as an elected official protected him from a slander lawsuit.) And this when the Al Qaeda playbook calls on its operatives to allege atrocities at every opportunity.
Murtha was scum – bad for even a Dem. His earmarks and other corruptions enriched his friends but ultimately impoverished his district.
We still have troops in Germany.
Aren’t you the guy who objects to Reagan having saved Grenada from totalitarianism?
That is truly one of the most inane comments I have ever heard.
We still have soldiers at West Point. Doesn’t mean we are still fighting the American Revolution.
I couldn’t give two squirts about Grenada, either then or now. I do care about double standards.
Why inane? We had no “exit strategy” in Germany. Troops in Germany have been attacked more recently than troops in Iraq.
Mao killed 100,000,000 Chinese, how many squirts do you give about that?
And if you’re a Democrat, you don’t care about double standards – you don’t care about anything but feathering your own nest through political power.
Andy Jackson made you the party of patronage – “To the victor go the spoils!”, all the plum gov’t jobs. Hillary during Travelgate: “We have to get our people in the slots!”
Every municipal political machine has been Democrat.
Double standards. Did Clinton get Congressional approval for Kosovo? Has Obama for Libya? What are you whining about Iraq for?
Troops were attacked recently in Texas too. I suppose that means we are still fighting the Mexicans.
Oh the trite, silly talking points of the small minded…so amusing. Yet so sad.
Have I joined a sorority? “Mommy, Mommy, Sissy sneered at me again!”
You do like to argue points that haven’t been made, don’t you? I wasn’t making any such comparison.
So were you born with this deep-seated inability to follow a discussion, or was it something you had to study in law school?
It wasn’t even a coherent point, Blackstone.
This chapou guy fancies himself a Loki figure. He hates conservatives, but instead of avoiding them, he joins a conservative blog to pick at them.
Make a telling point, he’ll sneer and change the subject – or distort your argument. He doesn’t argue in good faith.
He should thank us for making his social life the obvious success that it is.
Sorry. I must have missed your “telling point.”. All I have seen from you us idiotic equivocations of foreign military bases to actual foreign military operations.
And Blackstone, if your point was not to draw attention to the different time frames, then you are woefully obtuse. Someone in 1942 saying “we have lost” a world war against massive, well organized armies less than 1 year into engagement is nothing like someone saying that over 4 years into a guerilla war that was supposed to be over in months. Because, remember, we were going to be greeted as liberators. Oh, and the war would pay for itself. I mean really, what a stupid comparison.
“Equivocations”? Watch you don’t spill that cheap vodka on your keyboard.
Troops are in the field and the Senate Majority Leader announces “This war is lost”. Take another gulp and defend it some more.
Passed out again, huh? Well, when you come around, I suggest you resume your “so amused, yet so sad” persona – that was some effective debatin’, boyo!
So because a war takes longer to win than initially predicted, it’s therefore “lost”? The Civil War was expected to be over fairly quickly, too (with a Union victory). Does that means the North “lost” it also?
Check out the first Iraqi elections after our forces liberated them. How many of those elected called for our withdrawal, or were even neutral on the question? And how were things able to turn around so dramatically in 2007 if we didn’t have the support of the locals?
Our troubles in Iraq were not due, left-wing America-hating wet dreams notwithstanding, to Iraqi opposition to us. They were due to intra-Iraq sectarian violence.
You’re right. Stupid comparison. Unfortunately, you are the only one who made it.
You were all over the map and still managed (deliberately and artfully, I think) to avoid the point of the discussion. Let me recap for you.
1. Ota said no liberal (except extremists) had ever done anything to adversely affect troop morale.
2. I provided three rock solid examples of liberal leaders who made outlandish comments that directly affected troop morale.
3. Ota tried to backtrack and deflect by parsing the meaning of the words victory and win.
4. Blackstone asked Ota about a politician making a similar comment in 1942 and the impression he would give.
See? It relates to actions that affect troop morale. Nothing to do with how long it took to end a war or whether or not troops are still stationed somewhere.
Point – if a major politician stands up during a time when troops are actively fighting, and the politician makes disparaging remarks about the troops and/or the performance of their mission, it affects morale. Notice I did not say the rationale for the mission, so don’t bother.
Of course it does. SOmeone saying “we have lost” before we have even really begun is entirely different than someone saying “we have lost” when we are in the fifth year of what was promised to be a short, simple engagement.
One is purposefully undermining. The other is a reasonable assessment based on where we were and what we had accomplished at the time. Unless you think our troops can’t handle a reasonable assessment without crumbling into a shriveling, crying pile of camouflaged goo.
And, as Ota pointed out, we still haven’t won. The objective of the surge was to give the politicians breathing room to form an effective, sustainable coalition government. Iraq has not yet proven they can do so. If they do not, the surge, and the war, will have been a failure.
Sorry for using that word. I hope I didn’t send any special forces folks out there into quivering convulsions.
Actually, the objective of the war (post-Saddam) was to prevent Iraq from being made a base for terrorist operations the way Afghanistan was under the Taliban (only in a far more convenient location for them).
But really, saying the war will have been a failure if its objectives aren’t met is simply tautological. Saying it’s a hopeless cause is completely different. If you don’t think that affects troop morale, you don’t know the first thing about military operations.
I thought it was about WMD’s. Aluminum tubes and all. But hey, we’ll just go with the revisionist version. And in your case, it is absurd to think that removing Saddam, thus throwing the country into chaos, would further that objective. As was borne out. Iraq was far more of a terrorist threat post invasion than it ever was before.
So do you think, hypothetically, we should continue to engage in a war that we have lost? Do you think it is worth the cost both in terms of money and lives just so we don’t hurt some poor soldier’s feelings?
Because that is an absurd attitude.
What does the phrase “post-Saddam” mean to you? Try a free-association game or somehting.
I don’t accept the premise of your question, and you’re just trying to avoid facing the fact that declaring the war to be lost (especially when you happen to be the most powerful member of the Senate) seriously affects morale, and by extension, our ability to actually win it. Address that, and then I’ll answer whatever other questions you have.